#41-Antichrist (2009)

Antichrist

What is there to be said about Lars von Trier's Antichrist that hasn't already been said. A film so much about misogyny it might become misogynistic? A nasty little shocker designed to make us talk? A look at the emotional core of Pain, Despair, and Grief? Or simply a coping mechanism the director made for himself? Whatever the answer is up for each individual to decide for themselves, but all I can say about Antichrist is that it will certainly leave you thinking, and is more of an emotional test and experience than it is an actual film. Antichrist can go down in history as one of the few films that left me physically shaken.

The plot of Antichrist is actually somewhat simple when giving a synopsis. One day a husband and wife (credited only as He and She) are making love and not paying much attention. Their young toddler wakes up climbs out of his crib, and accidently falls out a window and kills himself. She blames herself and is in the hosptial for a month befor He -a therapist- decides to make her his own patient. They retreat to a cabin named Eden in the middle of the forest in a hope to escape. When He learns that She's biggest fear is nature and 'the woods' around Eden in general, he thinks best to stay in the situation that frightens her the most in hopes of overcoming her fear, which of course proves to be a fatal mistake.

Before we get into the complications of Antichrist what cannot be denied is the sheer quality of the filmmaking. Whether or not you agree with what von Trier put on the screen, it simply impossible to not be astounded by how beautiful these shocking images are. The opening shots, extreme slow-mo, high contrast, black-and-white are simply breathtaking, as are many shots in the film that have interesting effects applied to them. The direction, as per usual, is pitch perfect in general. Von Trier has always been great with actors and actresses, getting them to do things on screen they usually wouldn't, and this is no exception. Willem Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg (as He and She respectively) give the performances of a lifetime, bearing it all, and easily putting their careers on the line, to give top-notch performances. This especially applies to Gainsbourg who has to do some of the most terrible things you could ever ask an actress to do, does them with great conviction and flare.

Another aspect to be complimented is how absoloutly creepy, and unsettling the whole experience is. The lighting and sound design reminded me of some of David Lynch's latest work, most notably Inland Empire. The sound design is eerie, and creepy, and just makes you squirm in your seat, while the lighting is some of the most horrifying, and yet beautiful, at casting and playing with shadows. Add in the nature aspect, lots of fog and mist, and you get a shot of tree with shadows rolling on the branches, with the simplest music, and it makes a single scene that is scarier than most modern horror films can claim to be in their entirety.

"The three beggars aren't here."

However, there is the part of Antichrist is that is the only thing that most people the care about. The shocking, brutal, realistic, graphic sex and violence. While I won't go into any detail about the violence just know, as someone who is totally comfortable with violence in cinema, and someone who can easily sit through the Saw films, and the Hostel films, Antichrist just plain made me uncomfortable. It is notorious for two scenes in particular, and even knowing what was coming I still was incredibly shaken after watching them. Now for me this is both good and bad. While I can't applaud von Trier for putting these things on screen, I can applaud him for not letting the MPAA have a say in his work. He made the film he wanted to make, and the film stays unrated for good reason. It would easily have gotten, and maybe even surpassed (if they do that) an NC-17 rating.

But, this is also where the film falls apart. The scenes are brutal and disgusting and graphic, so much so that it actually draws you out of the film a little. The same can be said for the sex, which for awhile seemed like von Trier just giving the finger to the film industry standards, but in the end just becomes gratuitous and boring. It felt very reminiscent of -again- David Lynch's film about psycho-sexual awakening Blue Velvet, which had not nearly as graphic sex, but still enough to make it almost annoying. My theory as to the actual purpose of the film Antichrist is this: It seems like von Trier wanted to put us in an emotional place where we hadn't been before. A place that made us incredibly emotionally uncomfortable, and then wanted us to stay there and think about it. So it seems to me, had came up with a few scenes that would put us in that place, and then he built a film around them. And as such, so many scenes have so much more emotional impact than the others that the film feels very uneven, and sometimes rather clunky. To try and give the film meaning, and therefore justify what he did, (and maybe even cover himself a little) he then threw in the surreal images, the hard to find messages, and confusing imagery, which would make it appear to be more than it really was. A nasty little shocker, that was designed to put us in a place where we would feel uncomfortable, and makes us talk.

In the end, I think thats all that Antichrist really is. Does the film have a message that is hidden somewhere deep within the confusing imagery and surrounded by chaotic violence? Maybe it does, maybe it does speak some truth about Grief, Despair, and Pain, but I don't think that was Lars von Trier's goal in the long run. He wanted see how far he could push the human psyche, and he wants people to talk about it. That being said, I cannot say what he did is truly justifiable in anyway, because it doesn't need to be justified. Do the Saw films need to justifiy themselves for what they do? No, because they are designed to do what they do, and I think Antichrist is too. The surreal imagery, and the attachment of Lars von Trier's name make us think that it is something more than it is, and I think von Trier did this on purpose, but it doesn't mean anything. It's there to make you think that it has some meaning. However, of all the nastly little shockers I've seen (and there have been plenty) Antichrist is easily the best. The superb performances from two great actors, and perfect direction of some of the most disgusting scenes ever put to the screen make it incredibly hard to watch, as it should be. The cinematography, lighting, and sound design make it one of the scariest movies in recent memory, and of all time and therefore I do think Antichrist suceeds. If at nothing more, than being a good scary movie.

I Give Antichrist A:
3/5

#29-Dead Alive (1992)

Dead Alive

Before he went all crazy, making those silly Academy Award Winning Lord Of The Rings movies, Australian director Peter Jackson had a fairly nice career making crowd-pleasing horror film. His most famous of which are Bad Taste and Dead Alive. While these two films didn’t make much of a splash stateside during their theatrical release, they did soon become cult classics, and made a killing on DVD.

Dead Alive is known to most by a different title. One that is a little more catchy, being Braindead. It was put out under Braindead in most regions of the world, nearly all in fact except America where it was changed to Dead Alive, which makes it sound more cheesy than it should. Even though this movie has enough cheese to make Kraft jealous.

The plot that the film follows can be easily claimed by almost any zombie flick. On a trip to a remote jungle, a zoologist uncovers a strange breed of monkey, which at that point attacks both him and his crew. Somehow the monkey catches a ride on a boat and makes it way to land, where it is promptly caught and placed in a zoo. Enter a young man with an over protective Mom, a crush on the girl next door, a heart full of gold, and a body full of clumsy. Lionel decides to take his girlfriend on a date, and go to the zoo of course, but his always knifing mother is there to put a stop to things, and subsequently gets bitten by a Sumatran Rat-Monkey. She gets ill, passes on, and then comes back, only to bite and infect more people with this strange disease from a distant land.

"I've got some Cure-All in the Jeep."

Obviously, Dead Alive isn’t one of the most original films to grace the screen. In fact, its plot has been done several times, near to death, but it just keeps coming (he-he). The screenplay, weak as it may be, is always fun. Now fun doesn’t mean good. It’s full of inconsistencies, impossibilities, voice-overs, terrible dialogue, and to many deux ex machinia’s to count. Our hero begins as a bumbling idiot, and somehow becomes a leading class strong-man in the course of about three days. He also has the keen ability to get the girl, end his mom, and save the day. Like I said, fun doesn’t mean good. But in the life of a film critic, sometimes its nice to just sit back and watch some stupid without a care in the world.

That being said, for what it is, Dead Alive is an excellent film. It obviously knows what it wants to do and does that perfectly. It has a certain vulnerability at its heart that entrances the audience into rooting for the characters, and hoping for the survival of their favorites. It may be one of the best zombie films made. It’s intentionally funny and self-referential, the humor doesn’t always hit, but when it does, it hits spot on. The film is also unrelentingly grueling, gory and violent. Peter Jackson knows how to direct violence, he puts things at the perfect angle, sets up just the right shot, gets the gore, and doesn’t let up. He isn’t afraid to cover the screen in gooey red, or green, or even white. (yes white, one of the more disgusting scenes in the film)

Not a whole lot else matters in a zombie film like this. The film sets it sites, and hits its mark. It knows what it does, does it perfectly and nothing else. You cannot hate a zombie movie for being a zombie movie, especially a good one. It is wholesome, mindless, brain-bashing, gut-munching, side-killing fun, that never lets up and never holds back. Peter Jackson can have his cake and eat it too, as he knows how to direct fun, entertaining horror films, and win some Academy Awards too.

I Give Dead Alive A:

3/5

#28-Surveillance (2008)

Surveillance

Surveillance is the second film from Jennifer Lynch. Daughter of David Lynch, her career was thought to be short-lived after her debut feature Boxing Helena was received extremely negatively by both from both movie-goers and critics alike. Now, fifteen years later she tries again to break into the business her father is constantly revolutionizing, and she does so with mixed results.

If her career speaks for Jennifer Lynch thoroughly, she is never going to be as talented as her father is. This is something that needs to be stated, and known. If you go in thinking that Jennifer Lynch is going to be there for us when David passes on, I’m afraid you’re going to be wrong. Boxing Helena was obviously a film with a number of flaws, all of them nearly unforgivable. Surveillance however brings her work up a notch, and almost lets you forget about her previous film, but that however is not something very hard to do.

For all it’s worth, Surveillance certainly doesn’t have as unique of a story as Boxing Helena, but that doesn’t really matter when the other film just ended up terrible. Surveillance is about two F.B.I. agents investigating a series of murders, and a missing woman. While at the town where these vicious acts have taken place, they interrogate three people: a cocaine addicted woman, a corrupt police officer, and a little girl whose family was killed by the murderer. All three of the stories are told slightly differently through the eyes of these people, and ultimately interlock.

The film wants to, and sometimes tries, to be about the different reactions of different people when they know they are being watched by authority or peers. While it desperately wants to be deep and tell us a little something about the human psyche, and ends up falling short, and reverting to a murder-mystery tale that has a trick that we’ve seen before (different people, different stories, overall story develops through different additions ), and even has some slasher film influences, with the killers wearing creepy masks, and lots of blood making it’s way onto the screen.

"Is that your statement?"

The story is interesting enough, but it has been done before. A lot before. This idea of telling the story over and over again through different perspectives has almost begun to be normal, and the classic murder-mystery style of having one person solve it the lesser used. The mental aspect they wanted to add doesn’t work, and the twist ending easy to see coming. There is nothing specifically good with the story, but nothing specifically bad about it either.

The two main parts in the film are played by Julia Ormond and Bill Pullman, playing the F.B.I agents, and they do decently, again something that I could go either way on, there was nothing that made their roles jump out, or hold back, but I do have to admit, Bill Pullman is always kind of creepy, so it did somewhat add to the performance. Ryan Simpkins places the young girl Stephanie, and does a fantastic job for her age and part, she is easily one of the best child actors I’ve seen in awhile, and can’t wait to see more from her, in fact she is the first child to win a Best Actress award at the New York City Horror Film Festival. The film also has some other not to shabby performances from Kent Harper and Pell James.
.
Jennifer Lynch’s direction in this film is actually rather nice. She keeps the film raw and unshakeable. Never do we see anyone in the background, keeping us with a feeling of desperation a solitude, as if we couldn’t escape. A good deal of the film is set in the middle of the desert, which only enhances that effect. The office building in which the police work is desolate and empty, which though unexplained is still creepy as well. The film rapidly switches through color tonality, which gives us different feelings based on which character we’re watching and that helps the film quite a bit.

Jennifer Lynch has certainly beaten her previous offering with Surveillance, but like I said, it just doesn’t matter because almost anything could be her previous offering. She showed that she does have some skill behind the camera and can create a certain amount of emotion, but were she lacks is in directing people. The plot is ordinary, overused, and has been outdone, but is never boring, if she does another film, I will go ahead and give it a shot, but won’t necessarily look forward to it. Surveillance is a film that won’t kill you to see, but you shouldn’t kill to see it. It rests right in the middle, and is worth a rental if you were looking for it.

I Give Surveillance A:
3/5

#26-Friday The 13th Part II (1981)

Friday The 13th Part II

Aha! Mrs. Voorhees is back again...wait, thats not right...um.... Jason is back once again! Wait no. Jason is...starting? I guess so. In the second installment of the Friday series, another group of unsuspecting teenagers are slaughtered by a vicious killer. However in Part II, five years after the events of the original, a group of young camp counselors set out on endeavour for training, but not at Camp Crystal Lake, one across the lake, but still in the same forest. Jason apparently was more that an imagination, as he saw his mothers decapitation from the last film, and has grown up and is ready to exact his revenge. On more horny teenagers. However, Jason is a little different than you expect him to be. How you ask. Guess what, no hockey mask. Thats a trait that didn't get picked up until the third movie. First the killer wasn't Jason, and now no hockey mask. This series is just full of surprises, just like this sequel, they are mostly good.

We open just three months after the events of Part I, with Adrienne King breifly reprising her role of Alice from the first film. She lasts about fifthteen minutes before meeting her own shocking demise. Driving down the road in an old beat up truck, we find the next two of Jason's victims trying to find there way to a camp not far from the infamous camp blood. Not very many people decided t0 come back for this sequel, Adrienne King and Walt Gorny as Ralph, as well as Betsy Palmer. The new campers are not much different from the last, infact, I swear one of them looked exactly like Kevin Bacon. The new lead is a young blond named Ginny, not Jenny, but Ginny, played by Amy Steel. She was one of my least favorite characters in the movie, and I found her acting to be very annoying. Needless to say I enjoyed Anrienne King as our "Final Girl" a lot more. The rest of the acting in this movie is what you've come to expect from a horror film. Where in any other genre it would be trash, but for a horror film, its passable.

Made after the major, and unexpected success of the first film, Friday The 13th Part II, was made the following year, while still having a meager production, this one was slightly higher, with about one-million dollars on their hands rather than five-hundred-thousand. Originally the story was suppose to end with the third, each Friday The 13th they would put out a new, unrelated film, and turn the movies into some sort of anthology story, much like the Creepshow franchise. However, after each film just kept on raking in the dough, Paramount decided that Jason was enough, and the anthology would just have to wait. Besides, when you try to do a series without the many villian, and turn it into an anthology story, things don't go so well, Just look at Halloween III. Yeah, thats what I thought.

While 1981 was a popular year for the then young franchise, having the films first sequel come and all, and a bigger budget to do it with, you'd think that the special effects would knock the ones from the first one out of the park. No. They didn't. Infact they were about the same. While this films death sequences were a lot more creative, they weren't quite as bloody. The worlds only true Gore-Hound, Tom Savini, decided to skip out on doing the effects for Part II, to work on a film called The Burning. The Burning was one of the Friday The 13th clones that came out directly after the first, granted its also one of the better copy-cat films, its obviously not as popular as the Friday films. It didn't have any sequels. At all. Of course with a series like Friday where you have at films that all come out within the same decade, its kind of hard to compete. While I did kind of bitch about the films lack of blood, this is patially due to the MPAA cutting out 48 seconds of footage, which included much more blood letting during the famous double impalment scene, and since they have not realesed an uncut version of this film, there was no way for me to have seen it.

This film lacks the natural tension and creepiness that the original had, and that I loved so much. This film is much more straightforward, with no fancy twist ending, no special mystery killer, it is your average stalk and slash summercamp film. I also think the original had an advantage of having Betsy Palmer, who did a great job with her role of playing a mentally unstable woman, who is doing bad things but for good reasons, so in some ways, you feel sympathetic for her. I honestly thought that it was a tough role, for a very complex character, that unfourtanetly didn't get enough screentime for explanation. However, what this films lacks in tension and atmosphere, it makes up for with unique kills, and a fair about of gore. While you have classic stabs, and slashers, you also get temple crushes, machete heads, and the personal favorite, the all time favorite double impalment scene.

The plot for this film isn't mindblowingly complex, but you probably didn't expect it to be, so its really not that big of a deal. But I do give new Friday writer Ron Kurz some respect of during the plot device of Jason, into an actual story, and tying up some loose ends with the films continuity, and making things move along briskly. But not too brisky considering the film is only eighty-seven minutes long, and it allows for some story to develope, but have the kills frequently enough to not bore the audience. I also give the writer credit for having the balls to have Jason kill a dog, and then make a joke about. I thought the joke was genuinly funny and well placed.

Overall, this movie is definatly a worthy sequel, and better than most that follow it. The kills are better, bloody, and more fun this time over, Jason is finally brought into the picture to keep things fresh this time around. The plot was more or less the same, but kept itself in perspective enough to make it feel real. But it lacked the creepy atmoshphere the original carried perfectly, and while the acting wasn't much better last time around, and least last time, the main character was at least decent. Plus, I do indeed miss the cult classic quote, "killer mommy, kill her, nowhere to run, kill her mommy"

I Give Friday The 13th Part II A:
2.5/5

#22-The Thing (1982)

The Thing

A remake of the 1951 original, The Thing was helmed by director John Carpenter. This was his first big studio effort, with previous films including the original Assualt on Precint 13, and Halloween. Carpenter couldn't have picked a worse time to realese the film. As it was set, The Thing came out only two weeks after Steven Speilberg set out his own alien film, that one the hearts of moviegoers, and went on a box-office rampage, E.T.. Since then, critcs and audinces members have repented, and The Thing has become a much beloved cult classic, earinging its spot at #162 on IMDB.com's top 250 films of all time.

The plot is relativly simple, but creates for a very confusing story, that will keep you guessing all the way through. A group of scientific reasearchs are in a base in Antarctica to to some sort of study. While there we meet a whole cast of characeters, that are all very interesting and unique. The Norwegians from a nearby base begin to act strangly, and won't return calls. Pretty soon, the crew is sent to investigate, only to find that they have pulled something strange out of the ice. Once back at base, dogs begin to howl, and create very strange noises, only to have their heads explode, and turn into an octopuse creature shortly thereafter. Soon, this strange parasite has infected a few members of the crew. But the question is, who do they kill to find out?

Let's start this off by saying that John Carpenter is a master of his craft. He has proven to us that he can do suspense, and scary multiple times before, just look at his track record. He virtually is a tour de force in the name of horror. Once you have a title like Halloween under your belt, you have it made. There are a few things that I really enjoyed about his style this time around, and other things that I didn't. Firstly, since it had a bigger budget, we have better sets, and lighting, and camerawork. But the bigger budget also attributes to the loss of classic eariness, that comes through natural lighting, and home-brewed sound effects. Personally, I think Carpenter works best with a minimal budget, when he is forced to be created, but this certainly is one of his best big films.

"Well, thanks for considering me."

A lot of The Things infamy comes from its gratuitous violence, and excellent special effects, which you can see displayed above. And I have to say, they are pretty amazing, especially for the time period. Most of the accolades for this great achivement can go to Roy Arbogast, the speical effects director. He created some truly horrifying and gruesome things for this film. I am really shocked that this wasn't nominated for more awards in effects departments. Not to mention, all of them are practical. Not one effect you see was done with a computer, which is something to marvel in itself.

The film has a fairly slender cast, with the only big name being Kurt Russel. He's a decent actor, in my opinion, and he continues his streak of decency throughout this film as well, neither here, nor there. The supporting cast does a great job for a group of relative unknowns, such as Wilford Brimley, T.K. Carter, and David Clennon. They round out a diverse cast of characters decently. But the problem is, since the film relies so much on what the characters say and do (because thats how we decided who we think is infected), I wish a better cast could have been attributed to a great idea.

Overall, The Thing is a fun movie. A nice little horror monster flick to watch inside on a wet day, or when you take a sick day. The film is disgusting in its violence. Gruesome in its gore. And unrelenting when it comes to special effects. It's an interesting idea, pulled off by a decent cast of people, and a decent directing job by John Carpenter, who is truly a master of suspence, and an excellent choice for the director of this film.

I Give The Thing A:
3/5

#20-Daybreakers (2010)

Daybreakers

Okay, before we start anything here, can we talk about how awesome this one-sheet is? (One-sheet for those who don't know, is the industry word for poster). For me, this is the perfect kind of movie poster. It's simple. Has the title. Has the realese date. Catches the viewers attention, and you pretty much know what it is going to be about. I've been looking forward to this movie for a long time, even before it was officialy announced. Why and how you ask? Let me explain.

Back into 2003, the directors of this film, the Spierig Brothers, made a little independent zombie film called Undead. It had a budget of around $1 million, and was given limited realese, along with some festival screenings. The film sold incredibly well on DVD, and while not being a great movie by any means, I still enjoyed it quite a bit. Now, six years later, the Brothers are back again, this time with vampires and $30 million. I heard they were making a movie about a world overrun by vampires, about a year after this was announced, I saw the Daybreakers trailer, and basically, I had a freak-out.

Now, in case you don't know, Daybreakers takes the premise of your typical zombie and vampire films, and turns it on its head. The world has been virtually overrun by vampires. Not crazy, insane, brainless vampires, but vamps that run buisinesses, and drive, and drink blood coffee. People that do not get enough blood, go crazy and turn into your run-of-the-mill brainless vampire. There are a few humans left in the world, and those who are, simply try to survive. Unfourtanetly for the vampire society, the human population is almost extinct, and they are running out of blood, so soon, every will be "Underdwelers", going crazy, ravenous, and consuming all.

"I don't touch human blood."

For a weird horror genre-bender, Daybreakers actually has a fairly nice cast attached to it. Ethan Hawke plays our main vampire, with Sam Neill as the evil corporation executive. Then we have our heroes, played by Claudia Karvan and Willem Dafoe. Surprisingly, the cast does fairly well for the most part. Ethan Hawke does a fine job as our main character, and Willem Dafoe is always fun, especially in supporting roles.

The Spierig Brothers (Michael and Peter) do a good job for the most part, adapting their script to the big screen. Unfourtanetly for them, they aren't the best of writers, and these wonderful actors are given some pretty bad dialouge to read. Most of the effects are done decently, and there is a substanstial amount of gore in the film as well. The only problem is, the entire film takes place in one town, which would be fine, but the entire world is suppose to be overrun, and all we ever see is the tiny little town. Also, a good surprise, the Brothers managed to fit a little political message in here as well, and hopefully people will pick up on this, with the healthcare bill just being past and all.

Overall, Daybreakers was a fun goofy ride. It was a film about vampires taking over the world, and thankfully, it knew what it was, and never took itself to seriously. The make-up, and visual effects are done rather nicely for a moderate budget, and they had some very good actors to play some interesting roles. Unfourtanetly, the budget was a little to small for the scope of the project, and the dialouge is a little weak. But like I always say, there is a difference between a good movie, and a fun movie, and Daybreakers was definatly a fun ride.

I Give Daybreakers A:

3/5

#10-Sherlock Holmes (2009)

Sherlock Holmes

Sherlock Holmes. Well, hasn't your face been shy of the spotlight for quite some time now, eh? I'm sure that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle is actually quite happy about that, after seeing my creation thrashed about numerous times by various people, a break would be nice after awhile. Why did you have to go and ruin it Guy Ritchie? Mr. Holmes does have an interesting history though, Conan Doyle published four novels and fifty-six short stories that featured the character, he was then used, and re-created by various other authors, the stories were then adapted into fourty-one episodes of the classic series The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes. But then, in 1985, Steven Speilberg and Barry Levinson tried to adapt Holmes for a new audience in, The Young Sherlock Holmes. The project was a failure and was lost and forgotten about forever. Now, both Sherlock Holmes and direct Guy Ritchie have spotty track-records, is there anyway for this film to stay afloat?

Let's begin with the story of the film, which is my main flaw. This movie is, obviously, suppose to be a mystery, which it is, and mysteries, in all forms, whether it be film, television, novel, whatever, they are suppose to give the viewer, or reader, clues along the way to help them figure out the mystery. Sherlock Holmes doesn't. It seems that the main story itself gets pushed aside for brawly action sequences, and scenes of Holmes and Watson puttering back and forth with each other. Don't get me wrong, the mystery is cleary layed out, for us, they say, this happened, whodunnit? But they don't allow us to guess who exactly it is. The film then wraps up very quickly (and annoyingly) leaving the door completely open for a sequel (which I'm sure it'll have)

Now, above me I mention "Holmes and Watson puttering with each other." And though that may sound like a complaint, I actually felt that it was one of the better parts of the movie. Robert Downy Jr. and Jude Law give excellent performances. I typically like Downy Jr. and this movie is no exception, he is doing his typical thing, with some funny nuances, and kind of a drunken appeal, and it works like it did in Iron Man. However, I always approach a Law film with caution, he did however greatly surprise me though, being serious enough to be the responsible one, but being silly enough to keep up with Sherlock. The only problem I had in the acting department was Rachel McAdams, and usually, I like McAdams, not good, not bad, but passable. Here she just didn't know what to do. Whether this is attributed to her or the direction, I do not know.

"Discombobulate"

Guy Ritchie is still developing his life as a director. He is not a great director by any means, but he is a decent one at least. He throws his typical flair and style into the film, and as much as I like it, and as cool as it is, it just doesn't seem to fit into a film set in the 19th century. Speaking of the 19th centure, all the costumes, and buildings and make up looks fantasic in the movie. Everything is realistic and nice to look at. There is even quite a funny bit that deals with a false noes that was one of my favorites.

As much as I am putting the film down it still was a fun experience. It's an action movie, granted an action mystery, and the action is done well. The special effects are not Avatar by anymeans, but it's easy to make something we don't know look real, it's harder to make something we know look real when it's not. Trains crashing through docks and buildings, we can imagine that. Blue people jumping on dragon birds, not so much. The film also had some cool sound design, when bullets whiz past characters heads, we have a temporary silence followed by a ringing before sound is restored to us.

And really, Sherlock Holmes wasn't that bad of a film. Granted it's not as good as, maybe, District 9 or Avatar, it's still a nice little hold-over until something like Iron Man 2, or Kick-Ass comes along. The story was dull, and boring, and didn't follow Doyle tradition at all. While that kind of bugged me, it wasn't anything to bad. The acting was mostly good by everyone involved, it's fun to listen to Holmes and Watson sqwable back and forth to each other. Guy Ritchie does a decent job directing, as he usually does, with nothing special, or particularly bad. The art direction is lovely, and gives everything a dark, grungy, feel, we are also treated to some pretty nice special effects to boot!
I Give Sherlock Holmes A:
3/5

#6-Avatar (2009)

Avatar

After nearly twelve years of production, James Cameron's epic about giant smurfs is here! Just kidding, I loved that South Park. Anyway, Avatar was written right after Cameron finished Titanic in 1997. Cameron sold the rights to the film, but couldn't make it, as he had to wait for "technology to catch up" with his ideas. So, it is now 2009, and he realesed his film, and he needs you to go see it. Why? Because this movies estimated budget is around $500 Million dollars, thats right, half a billion dollars. And so far, with it making about $270 million in two weeks, its not that far of a cry. But, the question I have is in the advertising campaign. They are heavily relying on the fact that this is "from the writer/director of Titanic" and this is a heavy Sci-Fi film, and he is also the writer/director of Terminator, T2, and Aliens, why not markey with those movies Fox? Of well, look at its grosses, there is a reason I'm not in the add bussiness.

Now, upon seeing the advertisements for this film (which were terrible, by the way), I was very skeptical, it was definatly going to be totally awesome, or totally fail. For the most part, it was very awesome, but there are some things that bothered me about the movie, character and story wise anyway. Lets also not forget that this movie is nearly three hours long. Though I give credit to Cameron, because the movie kept most of its momentum going, and only felt long at about the two hour, forty-five minute mark.

Though you probably already know, Avatar is about a government program set in the future, 2154 is the year if my memory serves, and we have found a distant space planet, which we now call Pandora. On Pandora we find this little tiny rock that sells for a lot of money, and is a great source of energy. However, and indigineous people live on the giant threshold of it, and we need them to get off. So, we create half human, half Na've (the blue people) hybrids called Avatars that we can put people into. Hence, Avatar.

Now, I may as well point out what everyone else is pointing out, that the story is way over used, and to me seemed very cliche. Dances With Wolves, The Last Samuri, hell, Pochohantas all had the same basic principals that this movie does. You know, I'm just going to dedicate this paragraph to problems, so I don't have too many paragraphs. The dialouge also seemed very corny some times "my brother, the best scientist on the planet, was killed, all for the paper in his wallet" in dramatic voice overs certainly do not help this movie very much. The characters were, for the most part annoying, underwritten, and totally lacking in many human emotion. That being said, I though that the main Na've, played by Zoe Saldana, was both emotionally rich, and was played amazing. Also, the acting was pretty typical, and card-board-cut-out, by just about everyone else. Except maybe Sigourney Weaver....

"Sir, we got a native doing the funky chicken."

But, even with all those negatives, you won't really notice them until after the fact, and that's what matters. During the movie, you aren't thinking about things like that, (except maybe the acting), unless you go to the movie looking from a critical standpoint which most people do not.

Most people going into Avatar are expecting some pretty good effects, some action, and watching stuff blow up. And you get it. While there isn't a ton of action to the film, there is a ton of effects. While most people are praising the motion capture used on the actors, I think that the enviornment looked much better than the creatures themselves. They manage to make this entire world, which is ficticous, and not based on any real life plants or animals, and make it 100% belivable, and real.

The motion capture was decent, but some of it I just didn't like. The textures on the Avatars looked very fakey to me, but the real Na've looked really good, I don't know if that was intentional or not, but it was noticed, in fact, I think that the Na've look better when we don't see them as a human first. I have made the estimation that this is because if we see them as humans first, then we know what to expect from them as Avatars, and this whole motion capture stuff isn't perfect yet, so until you get used to it, it is a little underwhelming.

I have a lot of mean words for Avatar, but I won't post them here. For those going into this movie thinking it is going to be politcally powerful like most people are claiming it to be, then prepare to be dissapointed. If you are going into expecting a good story, prepare to be dissapointed, if you are going into it expecting great special effects, cool action, and just a plain ol' fun movie, then you will get your moneys worth.

I Give Avatar A:
3/5

#3-Paper Heart (2009)

Paper Heart

You remember Charlyne Yi, right? You actually probably don't know her by name, but you definatly know who she is. She was in the movie Knocked Up, playing Seth Rogen's super high friend who wanted to swap babies with Kathrine Hegiel. "Like, do you ever get mad at your baby because it stole your stomache, but its cool, because it's your baby, so you share." She was a total scene stealer and one of my favorite parts of that movie, well as it turns out, Miss Yi is known for more than just supporting roles in raunchy comedies. Her bill curently says: Stand-Up Comedian/Actress/Musician. That is quite the impressive title now isn't it. She has lots of friends in hollywood as well, with many of them actually showing up in this movie, but you'll have to see it to find out.


The idea behind Paper Heart is very cool. Charlyne Yi doesn't believe in love, she doesn't know what love is, and she for sure will never be in love. So, she decides to take a camera crew across the country and document what she and the film crew find about love. Now, they have actual interviews, and actual people telling what they do indeed think love is. This part of the movie is real, and is filmed documentary style, with Yi behind the camera asking the people questions. However the film becomes less of a documentary when Yi meets Michael Cera, as she is introduced to him through the director. Cera and Yi quickly find themselves falling for each other, and the camera crew decides that their relationship should be apart of the movie, and the two find it hard to fall in love with their life being under a microscope. This part of the movie was entirly scripted, and is intertwined with the documentary, with Yi, and Cera playing fictionalized versions of themselves, infact, everyone is this movie plays themselves except for the director, who is played by Jake Johnson.



The acting in the movie was very nice by all. That being said, it's good, but not convincing, as the actors often deliver cheesy one-liners, some of which hit, and others that end up on the floor. Plus, since we've all seen Michael Cera, we all know his form of acting. You know, the quiet, nervous teenager, whose only real goal at this point in his life is to get laid? Yeah, same basic message here. But who am I to complain when like his subtly acting and his great sense of timing. Yi did good as well, and she had the same, awkward teenagery thing that Michael Cera does.


Why the title Paper Heart? Because during the documentary scenes, when the couples explain some of their stories, there are interlude of paper puppert acting out the story as they are told. It looks a lot like claymation, and you can often see Charlyne behind the sets working the puppets, intentially of course. I liked the idea, and it was very cool, but it seemed to take a little bit out of the movie for some reason. I was good used here, but I don't think I'd be able to watch an entire movie like that.


I liked the whole idea of combining a documentary and a movie together, to have multiple stories going on, but all having the motive of finding out what its like to be in love. While the docummentary parts don't delve to deep, and you won't learn anything new that you haven't heard from a Disney movie, they are still fun to watch and see. Yi and Cera's portion of the movie seemed to work nicely too, but they don't give any insight on love either, as their romance is more like how to deal with your life while being a star. And while they seem to work together seperatly, these three parts (documentary, story, and paper) they don't meld entirly well together, and it makes the movie seem rough and choppy sometimes.


For the most part, I enjoyed Paper Heart. And this is coming from a man, who doesn't really like romantic comedies (with a few exceptions). It was interesting, unique, original, and not cliche. It had an interesting idea and story behind it, which was supported by some good acting. Unfourtanetly, the film is short, at only about 82 mins, and you don't learn much in the way of love. The many film types work on their own, but don't meld well enough for them to conjoin into an effect movie.


I Give Paper Heart A:
3/5